General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBritish Accuse David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald's Partner, Of 'Terrorism'
Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/02/david-miranda-terrorism-glenn-greenwald-british_n_4199838.htmlBritish Accuse David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald's Partner, Of 'Terrorism'
Reuters
Nov 02, 2013
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON, Nov 1 (Reuters) - British authorities claimed the domestic partner of reporter Glenn Greenwald was involved in "terrorism" when he tried to carry documents from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden through a London airport in August, according to police and intelligence documents.
- snip -
At a London court hearing this week for Miranda's lawsuit, a document called a "Ports Circulation Sheet" was read into the record. It was prepared by Scotland Yard - in consultation with the MI5 counterintelligence agency - and circulated to British border posts before Miranda's arrival. The precise date of the document is unclear.
"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."
- snip -
A key hearing on Miranda's legal challenge is scheduled for next week. The new details of how and why British authorities decided to act against him, including extracts from police and MI5 documents, were made public during a preparatory hearing earlier this week.
British authorities have said in court that items seized from Miranda included electronic media containing 58,000 documents from the U.S. National Security Agency and its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).
MORE[p]
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They are becoming the laughing stock of the world. Their 'security agencies' didn't think Rupert Murdoch and his gang of lying propagandists, some of whom are now finally on trial for what certainly could be more accurately described as 'terrorism' than exposing the TRUTH ever could.
Good to see them exposed this way, even more than they already are at the moment.
Good for Miranda and Greenwald for forcing the exposure of their tactics against journalists.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)of terrorism whenever and wherever it found it convenient in order to take advantage of the emergency powers the state gave itself to deal with real terrorists committing real acts of terrorism.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@tinyrevolution: "Many [governments] misuse terrorism laws to prosecute and imprison journalists"-U.S. State Department, April 4, 2013 tp://t.co/6SeambOdtD
malaise
(268,844 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...when they had him in custody for 9 hours. I wonder why that is?
This latest is just defensive babble as they try to smack down Miranda's lawsuit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that lack of arrest indicated that the cops had nothing....
This is not a logical assumption.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...although I still believe they are stretching the definition of terrorism, both when they detained him and now.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is going to get you investigated in every country on this planet.
Understand....Miranda was carrying documents stolen from GCHQ. Mere possession of those documents is cause to investigate and probably detain.
Greenwald should wonder who ratted him out.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and my understanding is that the documents in question were taken from the NSA not from GCHQ, although they may have included information concerning GCHQ.
dougolat
(716 posts)... having drones overhead that occasionally blow up a few cars or homes, not so much!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the fact that mere possession of the documents justifies investigation. Remember miranda is not charged with terrorism, but is being investigated as part of an ongoing probe. I think you may be assuming that the intent of the person possessing the documents somehow mitigates the type of investigation. It does not.
Yes... according to the OP he did have documents from GCHQ.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...from the article cited in the OP:
- snip -
At a London court hearing this week for Miranda's lawsuit, a document called a "Ports Circulation Sheet" was read into the record. It was prepared by Scotland Yard - in consultation with the MI5 counterintelligence agency - and circulated to British border posts before Miranda's arrival. The precise date of the document is unclear.
"Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security," according to the document. "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives," the document continued.
"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."
Now whether the outstanding charge is terrorism or not, I do not claim to know. However, this statement from the UK government was introduced into the proceedings against Miranda, and it clearly states that he was engaged in terrorism from their point of view.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)was carrying stolen documents from a person charged with espionage...through the country they were stolen from.
That is terrorism...stupid terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless. Heck.... I can't think of a country on this planet where he wouldn't be investigated for terrorism.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in the UK at the time that Miranda was traveling with the documents? I did not know that.
Anyway we obviously disagree about what should be deemed terrorism. Even if the law on this is as clear as you are saying, sometimes the law is an ass. I would argue this is one of those times.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)As for the law, why should the law apply to you and I, but not Miranda.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."Was Snowden or Greenwald charged with espionage in the UK at the time that Miranda was traveling with the documents?"
Anyway. Snowden was charged by the US with espionage, not terrorism. The UK is claiming Miranda is involved in terrorism. In my opinion they are stretching the definition. I am in agreement with Greenwald on this, who says "They (the UK) are absolutely and explicitly equating terrorism with journalism."
Anyway we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The Guardian transferred the GCHQ docs to the Times. The Times currently is in possession of the docs and is publishing information contained in them.
By your standards, both orgs are committing acts of terrorism.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the very country they were stolen from. I can't imagine an actual reporter being that stupid, can you?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)but they transferred them to a foreign press which is now publishing terrorist information.
Where did you get your info that he stole them from GCHQ?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)From the English govt.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)they didn't steal from my friend, they stole from me.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that intelligence assessment is classified in the United States and still under restriction in the UK, the UK still retains an interest in where their intelligence assessments go.
as in just because the United States has it doesn't mean that UK rights are extinguished.
your position isn't logical. think about the upcoming World Cup. do you honestly believe that Brazil is not actively seeking the intelligence files of every single EU nation with regards to security for these events? what do you think happens to the interest in those files?
antigone382
(3,682 posts)Stealing secret documents may constitute any number of crimes, but it is NOT terrorism. Neither is vandalism or destruction of property. Neither is assassination. Terrorism is only and explicitly violence directed at civilians with the intent of generating fear, for a political purpose. No violence was directed at civilians, nor is there any assertion that Miranda intended to aid, abet, or participate in acts of violence against civilians.
Note that I do not assert that Miranda committed no crime. Nor do I claim that the documents he had in his possession could not be used to facilitate terrorism. But the above quote does not make that link. It states that merely having documents "with the intention to influence governments to create change" (and that isn't a direct quote, but it's very close) is terrorism. By that standard any illegal act of protest is terrorism, from sit-ins to graffiti. That such a connection could be openly made by public officials without question is ominous.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Before or during, it's pretty obvious the NSA had them completely locked down and under complete surveillance. Hell, I'd bet they had a drone circling overhead to make sure they were as observed as was humanly possible.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the point of detaining Miranda was to cut off Poitras, who I suspect is wearing out her German welcome.
randome
(34,845 posts)They did, however, want to keep stolen documents from being transported through their borders.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
I thought the UK's laws are much less permissive w.r.t. freedom of the press.
Oh well I'm no authority on the topic, that's for sure. But calling it "terrorism" is absurd on its face, and you don't need a law degree to see that.
The security state's underbelly has been exposed for all to see, and many of us don't like what we see -- and the security state is furious that we were allowed to see it at all. That's really what this is all about.
I get that there are secrets and spying, and that is highly unlikely to end anytime soon. But these goons are just running rampant these days, sucking up any data they feel like, because they can. Power, corruption, absolutely.
randome
(34,845 posts)And they are sucking up too much data. Because in today's information rich environment, it's easy to do so.
We can put restrictions on the NSA (and GCHQ and any other spy organization) but they are doing the job they were designed to do. At least the NSA is. That job is to monitor foreign communications.
They're too damned good at it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...at the job they were designed to do.
It is quite apparent at this stage that any legal restrictions we put on them will be inadequate, because as you say it is so easy to suck up data these days, and they will do it anyway. They were also designed to be very, very good at covert actions.
We need to devise technical solutions rather than legal ones. Individuals should have access to encryption that is easy to use, universal and hard to crack, such as AES 256. Also architectures like Torrent, that mask network hops and make it much harder to track traffic. There is a peer-to-peer router proposed by McAfee that looks interesting, although from what I can tell it doesn't hop on the Internet but just creates a sort of instant LAN.
randome
(34,845 posts)Any 'uncrackable' encryption scheme or transport protocol will also be used by organized crime, child pornographers, etc.
I don't think we want that capability to be in their hands. I'm not sure if there is any solution that will satisfy the need for privacy and yet not become a tool for nefarious organizations, also.
Think of this heart-rending situation. Someone is bullied into suicide yet no one can track who is responsible because of the 'invincible' encryption you envision. On the other hand, in this Information-rich age, there really is nothing that is 'invincible' or uncrackable. That's the reality we live in, for good or bad.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but here's the thing. Either we allow our "betters" (the elites, the government, the corporations) exclusive access to this technology, or not. Yes I'm aware that we all use encryption routinely whenever we pay a bill online or access a page using https. But these uses are controlled, not consciously by the user but by the entities providing the service.
People can encrypt their emails now, to be sure, but it takes some effort and knowledge. I'd like to see it become standard, and not something that only techies tend to use. The use of encryption should be available to the masses. There are always criminals who will misuse the technology. Anything useful is a double edged sword and can be used for good or for evil or (usually) in a neutral way.
Anyway, organized crime and child pornographers already use encryption. They tend to be ahead of the curve on this stuff, for obvious reasons. I'd like to see it available, easily, to the masses so we can go about our business without the benevolent overseers being able to monitor every word. Especially since we know they go after political dissidents (usually leftist dissidents -- for some reason the right wing wack jobs seem to get a free ride), and activists of all kinds.
Right now, governments in general represent the well-to-do and not the majority of their populations. We the people, of the US and the world, need tools that will allow us to fight back. I don't believe that having our communications open to government surveillance by default is a good system in this day and age, not at all.
randome
(34,845 posts)As technology comes in ever smaller and more powerful devices, it's about to become an even braver, newer world than we imagined, I think.
I suppose even with the best, most secure encryption and protocols in place, law enforcement will simply shift to find other ways to catch the villains.
The genie can't be put back into the bottle.
Thanks for a cogent sub-thread.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...I also enjoyed our exchange on this topic.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Probably told him they would reduce any future sentence, if he would record his friends and wear a wire.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Happens in America all the time. Maybe it is not a prevalent idea in the UK. Dunno.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)just like that saying, "If everybody's at fault, nobody's at fault", if everybody's a terrorist...
Moe Shinola
(143 posts)The Huffpo story has been moved or something.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)they decided to "just go for it" and declare that journalism itself is terrorism.
Orwell spins in his grave.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)GCHQ documents?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Defending authoritarianism, as usual.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/02/david-miranda-terrorism-glenn-greenwald-british_n_4199838.html
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)certainly ill-advised, is it not?
Is it terrorism? What statute are we talking about?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)What statute they are using was discussed to death here. And it is beside the point. If the actions at question are considered terrorism based on their reasoning, their reasoning is a joke. If the actions at question are considered terrorism based on the statute, the statute is a joke. Defending the "pejorativation" of the word is an Orwellian joke.
randome
(34,845 posts)Someone trying to escape with classified documents intending to use those documents to spoil diplomatic efforts and interfere with international relations -if not terrorism, what would you call it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)When it is called for.
It doesn't matter what I would call it. It's not terrorism.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Intimidating people who tell the truth is the point.
Do you know who said this?
"it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Check it out. It worked for that "leader." It's working today for our leaders. It nearly always works.
But the really surprising thing is how well it works on some very intelligent, experienced people.
You and I are more likely to be killed or maimed by a drunk driver or a true-blue American guy in the shopping mall carrying an AK-7 than by a terrorist. In fact, we are more likely to die because of heart disease, because we smoke too much or due to cancer than to terrorism. But what is everyone afraid of? Terrorists.
Sometimes we empower the very people we are afraid of. Sometimes it is our fear that give them their power. That is true of bullies, and terrorists are simply bullies.
I really don't think that Snowden, Greenwald or Miranda are terrorists. They simply told the truth. Snowden betrayed a trust, but he did not threaten anyone or harm anyone. If he did, then who was it? (I'm not counting hurting Gen. Alexander's and Dianne Feinstein's egos.)
tblue
(16,350 posts)to silence Greenwald.
Uncle Joe
(58,328 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sending Miranda through Britian with documents stolen from Britian. Who is stupid enough to do that?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Seems to me it is the cops that are the dumb ones if that is the case...can you imagine them letting a thief walk when they caught him with the goods?
But you seem to have the evidence because you declared him guilty without trial...that is scary coming from a lawer...glad I don't need one.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)all the time. Detaining Miranda and confiscating what he had...along with returning him to Rio, accomplished what they wanted.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)sounded declarative to me...but sorry if I misunderstood.
So if a thief steals some jewels and they catch him, take the stolen goods they have achieved their goal?...I thought the goal was to put the thief in jail...at least that is how it works with common people...not so much with banksters though
With them they tell them not to do it anymore and make them pay a fine and keep the rest.
Is there two sets of laws I don't know about?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The goal is not merely putting people in jail.... it is enforcing the perogatives of the State. there are a variety of ways the state can choose to act. I suspect he wasn't arrested because he's more useful where he is.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The state can chose how to act, and don't have to treat all crimes equal...the two teared system is real then.
Glad you confirmed that for me, because that is how I thought it operated.
Poor and black people go to jail, and rich white people go home...
And for them, even receiving stolen property is a crime.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)are among the oppressed...I wish all my clients had their access to money, resources, and media.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I know how it works.
But just because you are rich don't mean they will not go after you if you tell on them...case in point Martha Stewart went to jail for what Wall Street does every day.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)There is no excuse or justification for this. These governments can and will do anything to someone they unjustly label a "terrorist.'
This is the authoritarian boot in the face to those who dare raise the alarm against corporate fascism.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)abuses of power we have seen lately.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)This was an act to place a bullseye on the man. Guess who the real terrorist is?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It's in the Scotland Yard document.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)"Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist!"="Commie, commie, commie!"="Witch, witch, witch!"
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)What a scam.
My reflex any more is to disbelieve the US/British government on anything regarding terrorism until it can be proven by a third party. They are totally discredited on terrorism.
leftstreet
(36,102 posts)QuestForSense
(653 posts)But they are STILL the lapdogs of the US; as much they were under Blair/Bush.
Snowfield
(46 posts)The privately held central banks (Fed Reserve, ECB, BoE, BoC, etc etc) and their multi-national counterparts (IMF, World Bank, etc and the big granddaddy, the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland) run the world thru a hyper complex web of monetary debt control over private firms, markets, and sovereign nations alike.
Private profits are kept by the banksters, private losses are dumped onto the backs of the sovereign citizens. This is the essence of fascism. The wealth is extracted more and more, and funneled upwards to an ever-narrowing group of systemic controllers. The rest of the world is bound into multi-generational chattel debt slavery.
1990 nations that didn't have a City of London/BIS network controlled central bank
Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yugoslavia
2004 nations that didn't
Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Somalia (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the former Yugoslavian all invaded by NATO)
2013 nations that don't
Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea
(Sudan split into north and south, both parts have London network-controlled central banks, Libya (the FIRST act of the "rebels" was to declare a central bank within the BIS schema), Somalia (nominal control by the network backed government) invaded by NATO et al)
See a pattern? I do.
The global central banksters have the most important power there is, the root of all power of individuals and nations alike, that is the power of control of the money supply, debt at all levels, and true wealth as it is mainifest thru the monetary systemic price that all goods, services, materials of production and social expenditures are based upon. All else pales in comparison.
QuestForSense
(653 posts)There are so many factors which effect everything that it's difficult to keep track of them all. Thank for an enlightening response.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)quite a few decades. Gerry Conlon arrested on anti terrorism act etc not a saint but not a terrorist either
all the above they aren't saints but certainly not terrorists either. Edward is a traitor and not a saint but no terrorist. I say this because if he were a hero I'd be forced to root for Dick Cheney and he's a traitor as well. Some people aren't meant to keep secrets....
I wouldn't root for anyone related to Glenn but oi they ain't no terrorist smh
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Snowfield
(46 posts)November 1, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - A recent Daily Telegraph article reveals that armies of Al Qaeda terrorists are using NATO-member Turkey as a springboard for their invasion of neighboring Syria. NATO is the chief executor of the so-called "War on Terror," started in 2001 after Al Qaeda terrorists allegedly flew four passenger planes into various targets on America's east coast, including the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Nearly 3,000 people died in a single day. The invasion of Afghanistan promptly followed based on the pretense that it was "harboring" members of Al Qaeda. The invasion and nearly decade-long occupation of Iraq followed shortly thereafter.
Yet despite all of this, Turkey, a NATO member since the early 1950's, appears to be guilty of the very crime Afghanistan was allegedly invaded and to this day still occupied for, harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. An army of Al Qaeda is (and has been for nearly 3 years) using southern Turkey as a safe-haven and staging ground for the invasion of Syria - disingenuously portrayed by the Western media as a "civil war."
Worst of all, these terrorists, literally carrying Al Qaeda's banner into battle, are passing CIA outposts, US, British, and French special operations training camps, and through Western-funded refugee camps, on their way to commit a wide array of atrocities along and within Syria's borders.
This defies all explanations except one - the "War on Terror" is a fraud, and the very terrorists thousands of Western troops have died chasing across the planet, have been armed, funded, trained, propped up, and reconstituted by the West itself as a perpetual excuse to engage in global aggression, occupation, and wars of immense profit in both terms of wealth and geopolitical power.
snip
--------------------------
pot, meet kettle
----------------
related
A man wearing a black shirt bearing an Al-Qaeda flag (L) speaks with a UN observer as monitors meet with rebels and civilians in the village of Azzara in the province of Homs on May 4, 2012. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says the unrest in Syria has killed more than 11,000 people since an anti-regime uprising broke out in March last year.
---------------------------------------
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashback 2 years (including Young Turks video) more US support of terrorist groups
Saudis and CIA back Khalid Sheikh Mohammads Jundullah in Pakistan and Iran?
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/12/saudis-and-cia-back-khalid-sheikh.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashhback to 2007 (BBC) Libyan Islamists 'join al-Qaeda'
Zawahri called for North African leaders to be overthrown
A Libyan Islamist group has joined al-Qaeda, according to an audio message on the internet attributed to the radical network's second-in-command.
Ayman al-Zawahri purportedly said the Fighting Islamic Group in Libya was becoming part of al-Qaeda.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7076604.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flasback to 2002 (Guardian UK) French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayler
MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy'about Gadaffi plot
British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lies, War, and Empire: NATOs Humanitarian Imperialism in Libya (Video + Article)
http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/08/26/lies-war-and-empire-nato%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Chumanitarian-imperialism%E2%80%9D-in-libya
snip
It has been said, In war, truth is the first casualty. Libya is no exception. From the lies that started the war, to the rebels linked to al-Qaeda, ethnically cleansing black Libyans, killing civilians, propaganda, PR firms, intelligence agents, and possible occupation; Libya is a more complex story than the fairy tale we have been sold. Reality always is.
What Were the Reasons for Intervention?
We were sold the case for war in Libya as a humanitarian intervention. We were told, of course, that we needed to intervene in Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was killing his own people in large numbers; those people, on the same token, were presented as peaceful protesters resisting the 40-plus year reign of a brutal dictator.
In early March of 2011, news headlines in Western nations reported that Gaddafi would kill half a million people.<1> On March 18, as the UN agreed to launch air strikes on Libya, it was reported that Gaddafi had begun an assault against the rebel-held town of Benghazi. The Daily Mail reported that Gaddafi had threatened to send in his African mercenaries to crush the rebellion.<2> Reports of Libyan government tanks sitting outside Benghazi poised for an invasion were propagated in the Western media.<3> In the lead-up to the United Nations imposing a no-fly zone, reports spread rapidly through the media of Libyan government jets bombing the rebels.<4> Even in February, the New York Times the sacred temple for the stenographers of power we call journalists reported that Gaddafi was amassing thousands of mercenaries to defend Tripoli and crush the rebels.<5> Italys Foreign Minister declared that over 1,000 people were killed in the fighting in February, citing the number as credible.<6> Even a top official with Human Rights Watch declared the rebels to be peaceful protesters who are nice, sincere people who want a better future for Libya.<7> The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights declared that thousands of people were likely killed by Gaddafi, and called for international intervention to protect civilians.<8> In April, reports spread near and far at lightning speed of Gaddafis forces using rape as a weapon of war, with the first sentence in a Daily Mail article declaring, Children as young as eight are being raped in front of their families by Gaddafis forces in Libya, with Gaddafi handing out Viagra to his troops in a planned and organized effort to promote rape.<9>
As it turned out, these claims as posterity notes turned out to be largely false and contrived. Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International both investigated the claims of rape, and have found no first-hand evidence in Libya that rapes are systematic and being used as part of war strategy, and their investigations in Eastern Libya have not turned up significant hard evidence supporting allegations of rapes by Qaddafis forces. Yet, just as these reports came out, Hillary Clinton declared that the U.S. is deeply concerned by reports of wide-scale rape in Libya.<10> Even U.S. military and intelligence officials had to admit that, there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas; at the same time Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told a closed-door meeting of officials at the UN that the Libyan military is using rape as a weapon in the war with the rebels and some had been issued the anti-impotency drug. She reportedly offered no evidence to backup the claim.<11>
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------
article is heavily footnoted and sourced (127 total footnotes) with hyperlinks as well
--------------------------------------------------------------
Al Qaeda is an artificial hydra, utilizing the 150 year-old methods the British practised in the middle east. The 'tip of the spear' low-level terrorists are many times actual believers in their cause, but the operational control is far removed from that paradigm.
The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda: The CIAs Drug-Running Terrorists and the Arc of Crisis
http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/the-imperial-anatomy-of-al-qaeda-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drug-running-terrorists-and-the-%E2%80%9Carc-of-crisis%E2%80%9D/
Remember, the USA seeds of al-Qaeda started in 1978 and 1979, under Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Carter regime, (now Gates has been the Sec of Defense under both Bush and Obama) and Brzezinski is a de facto chief architect of geo-political policy for the Obama administration http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65720/zbigniew-brzezinski/from-hope-to-audacityhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama08.htm .
Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=cambodia_662
1980-1986: China and US Support Kymer Rouge
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/us.html
China and the US sustained the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodias Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplied the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot . Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.
--------------------------------------------------------
September 4, 1997: Brzezinskis The Grand Chessboard Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect Americas status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US empire's currency (the rapidly-dying dollar) is backed up, collateralized by oil, and the oil is, in turn backed up by the global Anglo-American war machine.
This crisis point with the current global monetary debt regime will occur in the next 5 to 10 years max, it even may cause a new world war, as many industrialized countries (not just 3rd world periphery states) will simply be unable to continue to operate at a level that will prevent their own citizens from outright civil wars and coup d' etats (much like we see now in the 'arc of crisis' ie. Morocco to the Chinese border).
This concept was laid out over 30 years ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski (chief geo-political strategist for Carter, now for Obama) in his books, speeches and CFR articles. His goal is to use this arc to force a China vs. Russia war by 2020. This will complete the elimination (in his mind) of the last threat to the Anglo/American banking cartel for true, lasting technetronic global hegemony.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921766,00.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32309/george-lenczowski/the-arc-of-crisis-its-central-sector
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_chessboard.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-0
-----------------------------------------------------------
2 key books by Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Grand Chessboard
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299979870&sr=8
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------
Between Two Ages
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/between_twoages.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East
and Central Asia The Mumbai Attacks and the Strategy of Tension
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24770171/Creating-an-Arch-of-Conflict
------------------------------------------------------------------
pot meet kettle indeed
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Great research job.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Terrorism, what a crock.
lofty1
(62 posts)"Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in activity which has the potential to act against the interests of corrupt UK and US officials," according to the document. "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger corrupt officials' livelihoods and positions of power," the document continued.
"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence the people by way of the press and is made for the purpose of promoting the idea that corrupt government officials do not belong in positions of power. The very thought of this happening scares the shit out of us. This therefore falls within our definition of terrorism..."
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)ensconced in law at some point here.
That's the sketch they're outlining, and have been.
mike_c
(36,279 posts)Shame.
Rex
(65,616 posts)War mongers are a grade above the law it seems.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Yes, this is exactly like a fictional TV show.
And Glenn Greenwald is a mafioso murderer.
And therefore the UK are justified into twisting this into "terrorism."
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)a government is now an act of terrorism.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)Not exactly Orwellian, but close.